Whether the Attorney-at-Law Act has been violated where the Secretary-General receives money from a corporation under the title of criminal case processing;

If the defendant receives money from the non-indicted and requests and receives money from the public officials concerned for a criminal case against a corporation in charge of the duties of the Secretary General, the defendant's offering of money and valuables does not constitute another person's solicitation for the case or affairs. Thus, the above act of receiving money and valuables does not constitute a crime of violation of Article 54 of the Attorney-at-Law Act.

Articles 54 and 78 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Do1665 Delivered on November 11, 1980

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul High Court Decision 81No326 delivered on February 10, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

According to the decision of the court below, it is clear that the defendant was asked to have the public official concerned for the crime of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders against Nonindicted Incorporated Association 2, who was under investigation by the Seoul District Public Prosecutor's Office by accusation from Nonindicted 1 on November 1, 1978 to December 20 of the same year and received 4.2 million won over four times as necessary for the solicitation. However, it is clear that Nonindicted Incorporated Association 2 received 4.2 million won from the public official concerned for the crime of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders against Nonindicted Incorporated Association 2, who was under investigation by complaint from the public official concerned at the Seoul District Public Prosecutor's Office, but it was ordered to have one Deputy Secretary and one Deputy Secretary under his command in Korea for the business execution of the corporation, and the defendant was assigned to the above Deputy Secretary at the expense of the public prosecutor's office and one of the above Deputy Secretary-General at the expense of the defendant's office to have collected the penalty for violation of the punishment for negligence from 1974 to 1975.658.6

In light of the records, the above fact-finding of the court below is just, and it cannot be found that there was an misunderstanding of the value judgment of the evidence in the process of evidence preparation which was conducted for its fact-finding. In addition, as long as the facts established by the court below, the defendant's acceptance of money and valuables from the non-indicted 1 and the solicitation of the public official concerned to the public official concerned is related to the criminal case against the corporation in charge of the duties of the secretary-general, so it cannot be viewed as an solicitation of another person's case or affairs. Article 54 of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that the case or affairs handled by the public official means another person's case or affairs (Article 79Do165, Nov. 11, 1980). Thus, the defendant's act of receiving money and valuables at the time of the court below's original opinion does not constitute a violation of Article 54 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and the defendant's so-called consumption of money received by the defendant constitutes a violation of Article 54 of the Attorney-at-Law Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating judges. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)